Manhattan Telecommunications Corp.. v. H & a Locksmith Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2011
• Citation: 920 N.Y.S.2d 74,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02539,82 A.D.3d 674
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: MANHATTAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.H & A LOCKSMITH, INC., etc., et al., Defendants,Ariq Vanunu, Defendant–Appellant.

82 A.D.3d 674

920 N.Y.S.2d 74

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02539

MANHATTAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.H & A LOCKSMITH, INC., etc., et al., Defendants,Ariq Vanunu, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

March 31, 2011.

Ofeck & Heinze, LLP, New York (Mark F. Heinze of counsel), for appellant.Jonathan David Bachrach, New York, for respondent.GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, ROMÁN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered December 28, 2009, which denied defendant-appellant's motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

The verified complaint alleged a contract to perform telephone services by plaintiff for defendants for a stated fee, and defendants' failure to pay. However, the complaint does not allege that appellant was a party to the contract individually, so as to bind him its terms. “Some proof of liability is ... required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of ... uncontested causes of action” ( Feffer v. Malpeso, 210 A.D.2d 60, 61, 619 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Giordano v. Berisha, 45 A.D.3d 416, 845 N.Y.S.2d 327 [2007]; CPLR 3215 [f] ), and here plaintiff failed to provide the motion court with evidence that appellant was personally liable for the stated claims. Accordingly, the default judgment was a nullity ( see Natradeze v. Rubin, 33 A.D.3d 535, 822 N.Y.S.2d 541 [2006] ).